Response to an Official Statement from the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles - June 28, 2014

In light of the June 2014 disciplinary councils for several LDS members with high-profile social media presences, the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have issued an official statement. While it does not name names, the statement's references obliquely address the excommunication of Kate Kelly and the work of the Ordain Women movement.

For several weeks in June 2014 the Church has responded to national news articles and blog posts through their public relations office via spokespeople and press releases on MormonNewsroom.org. This tactic was met with concerns from many that the Church was "hiding" behind their PR team. This Official Statement seems to be in response to this concern.

The MormonThink editors have carefully reviewed the Church's short (176 word) Official Statement, which we reproduce in its entirety below. Our response follows.

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY
47 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE STREET, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84150-1200

June 28, 2014

In God's plan for the happiness and eternal progression of His children, the blessings of His priesthood are equally available to men and women. Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices. All service in the Church has equal merit in the eyes of God. We express profound gratitude for the millions of Latter-day Saint women and men who willingly and effectively serve God and His children. Because of their faith and service, they have discovered that the Church is a place of spiritual nourishment and growth.

We understand that from time to time Church members will have questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding. We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from Church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them.

Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.

THE COUNCIL OF
THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND
QUORUM OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

An analysis of the First Presidency's Statement follows.

Paragraph 1

In God's plan for the happiness and eternal progression of His children, the blessings of His priesthood are equally available to men and women.

As stated above, the purpose of this Official Statement seems to be aimed at the Ordain Women movement and its sympathizers, and the purpose of this sentence is to put the reader at ease that, regardless of gender, everyone benefits equally from the priesthood. However, this sentence does not address the legitimate question concerning if it is God's will that women are not allowed to be ordained to the priesthood.

Newborns also benefit from "the blessings of His priesthood" (if an infant needs a priesthood blessing, he can get one), just as long as it is a male giving the priesthood blessing. In the modern Church there is a clear distinction between who can get the blessings of the priesthood (females and males) and who can give the blessings of the priesthood (only males). This phrase is not only referring to blessings of healing, but other blessings that a priesthood holder provides through using that priesthood, such as bestowing on someone the Holy Ghost, which will be a constant companion to that person.

Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices.

This simply restates the problem, and the statement's following sentences reveal a refusal to address its core issue: why is this so? Moreover, two words stand out in this sentence: "men" and "offices." The Aaronic Priesthood has four offices: deacon, teacher, priest and bishop. The vast majority of the first three offices are held by 12-18 year old boys, not "men."

This sentence obscures the reality that boys are ordained to the priesthood and that they operate with greater Church-granted authority than any woman does. Is the Church trying to hide the fact that young male children are given more of God's power than women? The typical LDS definition for "priesthood" is "The power/authority given to man to act in God's name." (See Elder Bednar's April 2012 General Conference talk, "The Powers of Heaven" where he says, "The power of the priesthood is God's power operating through men and boys...")

...ordained to serve in priesthood offices...

Why doesn't this simply say "ordained to the priesthood?" It is believed by some that in the Second Anointing ordinance that women, like men, are ordained to the "fullness of the priesthood."* However, through the second anointing ordinance, women are not ordained to an office in the priesthood. Is this a tacit admission by the Church that women, in fact, can hold the priesthood? It begs the question: If women are ordained to the priesthood in the second anointing, why not in other aspects of the Church?

* The record of "Meetings of the Anointed Quorum" shows that at this same meeting, Joseph and Emma also became the first couple to receive the "second anointing" or "fullness of the priesthood." By this ceremony they were each "anointed & ordained to the highest & holiest order of the priesthood." Later church historians in Utah deleted Emma's name from the 1843 description of the prophet's "second Anointing of the Highest & Holiest order."

Sentences one and three of the first paragraph acknowledge God as participating somehow in the information being dispensed. However, sentence two, the important sentence, does not say that such is God's will. It merely states that such is currently the case—i.e., "policy" or "practice." In 1949, the then First Presidency said that the "policy" of not allowing blacks the priesthood was a "direct commandment from the Lord."** The 1969 First Presidency message regarding race also mentioned that it was God's will that blacks were denied the Priesthood.***

The leadership's previous stance on blacks and the priesthood was clear: It was God's word and will. However, current Church leadership approved a recent essay saying that denying blacks the priesthood was not God's word and will, rather, they say, "Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood

So was the stance on blacks and the priesthood doctrine, practice, policy, theory, idea or what, exactly? Today, is the stance on women and the priesthood doctrine, practice, policy, theory, idea or what, exactly? More importantly, what is God's word and will concerning the stance on women and their ordination to the priesthood? If women are be kept from being ordained, not because it's God's will, but for some other reason, why are women not allowed to be ordained to the priesthood? Since LDS prophets, seers, and revelators have direct access to knowing the will of God, why don't these men issue a revelatory statement that addresses this issue clearly, lucidly and without ambiguity?

** The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.

*** Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, 'The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God.. Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's pre-existent state.' President McKay has also said, 'Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.' Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will.

The remaining sentences in this paragraph do nothing to address the issue of God's word and will for who should and should not be ordained to the priesthood.

Paragraph 2

We understand that from time to time Church members will have questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding. We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from Church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them.

This, at first glance, seems to be a softening of the stance heard from the PR machine. It appears to embolden members to question, even in public forums as long as they don't "encourage others to follow them." However, the third paragraph dispenses with that notion.

...members who distance themselves from Church doctrine, history, or practice...

This should be the most important part of the entire statement, but it utterly fails because of two undefined words: "doctrine" and "practice." ("History" also is problematic, as the entire MormonThink site attests to, since there seems to be a disjunct between the history that is taught or hidden from members and what actually happened.)

In the LDS Church, much is made of "doctrine." Yet nowhere is there a list of clearly defined doctrine that would allow members to know which items on the list were verboten in public discussion. In other words, there is no list informing members that if they try and encourage others to believe something other than what is on that list, they are in danger of apostasy. And it goes without saying that if a member can be guilty of apostasy for encouraging others to distance themselves from Church doctrine and practice, there needs to be clearly defined lists of what those doctrine and practices are. Instead, this statement seems to assume that this knowledge is equally shared and understood.

It is popular to deflect this concern by saying that it is up to the member, through seeking their own witness, what constitutes God's word and will in any given "doctrine" or "practice" of the Church. If this is the case, what is the purpose of prophets, seers and revelators? Additionally, what should happen when a member receives personal revelation contrary to words of the prophets, seers and revelators? It is the experience of many people that Church leaders tell people with such experiences they are wrong and need to step back in line with the leadership. Nowhere is this more clearly taught than in Elder Dallin H. Oaks' talk, "Two Lines of Communication":

Unfortunately, it is common for persons who are violating God's commandments or disobedient to the counsel of their priesthood leaders to declare that God has revealed to them that they are excused from obeying some commandment or from following some counsel. Such persons may be receiving revelation or inspiration, but it is not from the source they suppose. The devil is the father of lies, and he is ever anxious to frustrate the work of God by his clever imitations.

…[T]he priesthood line of communication has the additional and necessary intermediaries of our Savior, Jesus Christ; His Church; and His appointed leaders.

[W]e cannot communicate reliably through the direct, personal line if we are disobedient to or out of harmony with the priesthood line…

Although Elder Oaks' talk touts the need for both personal revelation and revelation through the "priesthood line" (Church leaders), Elder Oaks is explicit that those who get different revelation or inspiration than their leaders are deceived by the devil. So there is only one option left for the devout: Obey your leaders because seeking one's own witness is a false choice.

(On a related note, Oaks' talk implicitly asserts that women only have reliable communication with God insomuch as their communication is filtered through the priesthood, in other words, through men.)

As mentioned above, this First Presidency Statement appears to be a direct response to the Kate Kelly excommunication. One of Kate Kelly's organization's goals is to try to get the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to make a definitive, doctrinal statement that emphatically states that God's will is that He does or does not want women to hold the priesthood. This document fails to do this. There is no declaration of God's divine will on the matter. (As a side note, this problem crops up again and again in Mormonism—there is no clear cut way to know what is and is not God's will on almost anything. This problem is often erroneously discussed as "official doctrine" or the "fallibility of Church leaders" issues.)

Even if this document did state that it was God's word and will, what guarantee is there that in 50 years the First Presidency at that time won't say that the June 28, 2014 First Presidency Statement was simply a theory of the time? What is the ineffable word and will of God in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? And where can it be found?

Equally as troubling is the word "practice." This seems a hedge against the very problems mentioned above. Does the First Presidency realize that what they are saying now may not be doctrine? Are they saying that a "practice" merits equal weight as doctrine? Is the Church turning Pharisaical in asserting that the traditions of the Church are equal to its canonical doctrine?

Is there a list of Church practices? As silly as it may sound, is having funeral potatoes at LDS funerals a Church "practice"? Practice at what level, the ward, stake or worldwide level? From another angle, consider that it is Church "practice" to visit the temple often. Does this mean that members who choose to distance themselves from frequent temple attendance, and encourage others to do likewise, are in jeopardy of being tried for apostasy?

So-called cafeteria Mormons and New Order Mormons (NOMs) operate within these gray areas of doctrine, practice and individual revelation. They pick and choose which things they want to believe in and which things they will practice. Many of them will choose to drink beer because of the "mild drinks" portion of the Word of Wisdom, yet still tell the bishop and stake president they are living the Word of Wisdom. And they will encourage others to do the same. Is that apostasy? If it's not, and it's perfectly acceptable, does that open a can of worms for the Church?

Paragraph 3

Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.

There are two criteria in this definition of apostasy: (1) "repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders" and (2) "persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine."

Item 1 has two problems:

(A) What exactly is "opposition to the Church"? Does it mean strong disagreement with the Church? Does it simply mean a different viewpoint than the Church has? Does it mean trying to stop or defeat the Church? Is what is espoused here, in this response, opposition? What is the distinction between opposition and questioning? If an opposition is simply reworded into a question, is that permissible? By asking, "Why doesn't the Church ordain women?" does it imply, "The Church should ordain women"?

(B) Opposing a Church "leader" is considered apostasy. This is brought home quite clearly in Elder Dallin H. Oaks' statement in a PBS interview: "It's wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true." (Link is here.) The ambiguity of this statement becomes manifest when we consider a few questions. When it comes to apostasy, who is considered a leader? A huge number of members in the Church are "leaders." Which leaders are being referenced in this Statement? Any leader? Or only priesthood leaders? If a Primary President bans a nursery worker from taking graham crackers into the nursery, and the nursery work defies her, and then publicly states that she will take graham crackers into nursery, is that nursery worker liable to be summoned for a disciplinary council for apostasy? This seems ludicrous. And we believe that the General Authorities would think it ludicrous too. However, by failing to be specific, and leaving it as general as possible, they can practice plausible deniability and censure whomsoever they choose by an appeal to this criterion.

Item 2 was discussed above with paragraph 2.

Some may say that one who is compelled in all things is a slothful servant (D&C 58:26). However, the Church seems to have set itself up to require one to parse these issues, not only in this Official Statement, but in much of their discourse, since so many things are left unsaid. Moreover, for believers the stakes could not be higher. How a loyal Mormon lives out these issues could potentially place their Church membership and temple ordinances—and by default their eternal exaltation—in jeopardy. Doesn't it fall upon the Church to make crystal clear what God's word and will is in these matters?

The First Presidency had the opportunity to demonstrate to the world that they are God's prophets, seers and revelators by boldly proclaiming God's word and will in the matter of women and their ordination to the priesthood, and by clearly demarcating what does and does not qualify as doctrine. Instead they present smoke and mirrors.